218
18.3 Results
18.3.1 Household Livelihoods and Farm Characteristics
The majority of the population was very poor and suffered from food insecurity. The
median income per person per day was $0.09, or $144 per household per year. The
PPI predicted that 51% of households were below the $1.90 poverty line, although
from reported household income we calculated that 99% of households were below
that poverty line. Median household population was eight persons, and median land
owned was 2 ha per household, with 1.6 ha cultivated in the last year. Crops sales
accounted for the majority of household income ($96 per year), followed by environmental resources, including woody resources and non-timber forest products
($33 per year). Livestock sales and off-farm income were low, returning median
values of zero, although some households did derive income from these sources.
Livestock animals were, however, widely kept, with 80% of the population keeping
some form of livestock. The main crops grown were ground nut (85% of households), maize (82%), millet (58%), rice (53%) and sorghum (25%). The main livestock were goats (65%), chickens (48%), sheep (39%) and cattle (28%). The NTFPs
reported were shea, baobab and mango, with shea by far the most widely used. Shea
was gathered by 72% of the study population, baobab by 19% and mango by 8%.
The environmental resources were fuelwood (65% of the population) and charcoal
(5%).
Using the food availability indicator, we calculated that the median amount of
kcal available per person (adult male equivalent) per day was 3023; but that 42% of
the population had less than 2500 kcal available per day. Households reported on
average 3 months during which it was difficult to source enough food, with the
worst period being May through August. Using the HFIAS indicator, 81% of households were categorised as severely food insecure during the lean season, 9% moderately food insecure, 3% mildly food insecure and 7% food secure. Dietary
diversity was low during the lean season, with a median score of 3 food groups
eaten at least weekly. Outside the lean season the dietary diversity score was considerably better, with a median score of 7.
Very few households were considered above the poverty line, either among beneficiaries or non-beneficiaries (see Fig. 18.1). There were, however, more households in the poorest category (below the calorie line) among the non-beneficiary
group than the beneficiaries (p < 0.05). The plausible reason for this, looking at the
sources of calories and income illustrated in Fig. 18.1, is the major role played by
NTFPs. The mean amount of income derived from NTFPs is greater amongst project beneficiaries. Amongst both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries the importance
(as a proportion of calorie provision) of NTFPs and woody resources is greater for
poorer households.
J. Hammond et al.
18.3 Results
18.3.1 Household Livelihoods and Farm Characteristics
The majority of the population was very poor and suffered from food insecurity. The
median income per person per day was $0.09, or $144 per household per year. The
PPI predicted that 51% of households were below the $1.90 poverty line, although
from reported household income we calculated that 99% of households were below
that poverty line. Median household population was eight persons, and median land
owned was 2 ha per household, with 1.6 ha cultivated in the last year. Crops sales
accounted for the majority of household income ($96 per year), followed by environmental resources, including woody resources and non-timber forest products
($33 per year). Livestock sales and off-farm income were low, returning median
values of zero, although some households did derive income from these sources.
Livestock animals were, however, widely kept, with 80% of the population keeping
some form of livestock. The main crops grown were ground nut (85% of households), maize (82%), millet (58%), rice (53%) and sorghum (25%). The main livestock were goats (65%), chickens (48%), sheep (39%) and cattle (28%). The NTFPs
reported were shea, baobab and mango, with shea by far the most widely used. Shea
was gathered by 72% of the study population, baobab by 19% and mango by 8%.
The environmental resources were fuelwood (65% of the population) and charcoal
(5%).
Using the food availability indicator, we calculated that the median amount of
kcal available per person (adult male equivalent) per day was 3023; but that 42% of
the population had less than 2500 kcal available per day. Households reported on
average 3 months during which it was difficult to source enough food, with the
worst period being May through August. Using the HFIAS indicator, 81% of households were categorised as severely food insecure during the lean season, 9% moderately food insecure, 3% mildly food insecure and 7% food secure. Dietary
diversity was low during the lean season, with a median score of 3 food groups
eaten at least weekly. Outside the lean season the dietary diversity score was considerably better, with a median score of 7.
Very few households were considered above the poverty line, either among beneficiaries or non-beneficiaries (see Fig. 18.1). There were, however, more households in the poorest category (below the calorie line) among the non-beneficiary
group than the beneficiaries (p < 0.05). The plausible reason for this, looking at the
sources of calories and income illustrated in Fig. 18.1, is the major role played by
NTFPs. The mean amount of income derived from NTFPs is greater amongst project beneficiaries. Amongst both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries the importance
(as a proportion of calorie provision) of NTFPs and woody resources is greater for
poorer households.
J. Hammond et al.